Ireland legalizes homosexuality....

[Brant Gaede]

Your "moral propriety" excludes love.

Moral propriety is love, Brant.

You're totally free to define love in any way you choose.

Greg

Love is a feeling.

--Brant

Ok...that's your view.

For you love is a feeling.

For me love is doing right by others

regardless of how I feel.

Greg

Now you're confusing out of love or from love with love itself.

--Brant

I'm being perfectly clear, Brant

In my view, only actions matter... not feelings

My opinion doesn't impinge upon your freedom to define love in any way you choose.

Greg

I didn't say you weren't "perfectly clear"--at least to me. I didn't ask for clarification; I merely stated the obvious. Now you are adding self-alienation into your moral gumbo. I do wonder how young you were when you embraced your religious tar baby. Or was it "imprinted"? By a preacher? What was his methodology? If the preacher was female it could account for your heterosexuality? I guess not--but how did you become heterosexual (by imprinting, yes or no)?--but that would mean you'd turn right around and sexually molest girls to imprint them in turn? Note, I'm not accusing you of any such thing. I'm merely stating your views on human sexuality, acquired, are nonsensical. Yes, a boy or adolescent boy can be imprinted into homosexuality by a male if his own sexuality is experienced as ambiguous, but adolescent males are so gamed up to get it on some will fuck goats. That's why two adolescent boys might sexually experiment with each other--careful with girls; you don't want to be a daddy--then segue to girls then marriage and family. They do need to learn the difference between mere ejaculation and orgasm so they can have the most fun masturbating--is this too fast and hard for you?--and I must suggest you as a religious ideologue have no more business passing around your sexual views than a Catholic priest has counseling a soon to be married couple. I do admit that biologically men and women are made for each other--they fit together so well in sexual congress that homosexuals do their best to emulate them. Heterosexuality is the gold standard. The City on a Hill. So when one gay fucks another they're paying tribute. Of course, up the ass is not as good as up the pussy, but some heterosexuals butt fuck too. (Now who is emulating whom?) Suck a dick, lick a pussy. What's so bad about one guy sucking the dick of another? Women suck guy dicks all the time. A mouth is a mouth. I admit I have some anti-homosexual hangups. Two guys kissing in public makes me uncomfortable. I think it's cultural imprinting. But that's my problem, not theirs, and I'd never dump on them for that. I love it when heterosexual couples kiss in public. This type of cultural imprinting--against gays kissing--will weaken generation after generation and I can weaken it in myself by walking around San Francisco for a year or two. (I can't afford the time or money and I'd prefer Manhattan for walking around).

When we live in a world of ideological abstractions and "reasoning" we can pretend how noble and uplifting heterosexual sex is and how disgusting and degrading homosexual sex is, but when it comes to animals rutting about in the dark only one couple is practicing guaranteed effective birth control. (Going solo also works.)

--Brant

the true beauty of sex is when it flows from romantic love, even if the bride on her wedding night gets it up her ass, in her mouth, sucks his dick and throw in doggy style, ass or pussy, and the way preferred by missionaries--but hey!--gays get that beauty too even as they 69--and don't forget the wedding guests, back at home, imagining handsome Johnny fucking beautiful Sally as they plow away with each other in joyous harmony all-night-long! (And even during the marriage ceremony and the reception that follows everybody knows that they will soon be fucking, fucking and fucking some more as soon as they can tear each other's clothes off, especially as Johnny reaches way, way up Sally's leg with everybody looking on to pull off that stocking that goes way up, maybe almost as far as her quivering, dripping cunt. This is why the marriage ceremony is so important--it morally justifies and beautifies sex--and primarily why it's so important to queers, but bigoted heterosexuals don't want them to have that so important symbolism and sanction. They want them to be damned by their "ugly" sex.)

[moralist]

YIKES!

[Brant Gaede]

You came to a secular site well armored, which is why you have survived here so long. But we aren't pagans. Pagans don't seem to have a good moral compass. You can't say that is necessarily true of Objectivists. Ayn Rand was all about that moral thingy.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

YIKES!

Gotta preserve this.

[moralist]

YIKES!

Gotta preserve this.

Here's my favorite...

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

I simply grounded the discussion.

I'm about to ground another where someone's going on about making war.

--Brant

[RobinReborn]

@Greg, can you explain to me how you reconcile Christianity with Objectivism? I've read a lot about how people reconcile anarchism with Objectivism but I've never seen anybody try to reconcile Christianity with Objectivism...

[Selene]

@Greg, can you explain to me how you reconcile Christianity with Objectivism? I've read a lot about how people reconcile anarchism with Objectivism but I've never seen anybody try to reconcile Christianity with Objectivism...

RobinReborn:

I just brought up a thread on Christianity and Objectivism from 2014.

[william.scherk]

This rambling nightmare was in drydock. Unfinished. Probably unhelpful.

News emerged in the last fortnight that his eldest child had molested five girls, including four of his own Duggar sisters, on multiple occasions. The eldest Duggar child, Josh, was fourteen at the time.

This is why doing evil under the color of authority of God is among the very worst of sins.

Josh did not molest his sisters under the colour of God's authority.

Meanwhile, to your Queer Theory, Greg -- are you too craven to bring forward an explication of how the affected Duggar girls can escape lesbianism?

I though masculinized rightist male queer theorists like you had an aphorism for every occasion. What's the simplest explanation for your inability or unwillingness to support your own theory when given an opportunity from real life? Fear of a difficult task? Ignorance? Laziness? Embarrassment?


Crickets.

*********************

Notes. Some quotes, references, further points. What underlies my questions to Greg.


Queer Theory:

Homosexuality is the consequence of the failure to resolve emotional sexual traumas of the past. It only takes the shock of a violation to displace a child's natural gender identity with the imprinting of a foreign gender identity... but it requires the violated one's own hatred to retain that unnatural identity. Without the emotional energy of hatred to keep the imprinting "alive", the identity cannot endure.

Today, the sexually molested have become a powerful militant political class

Observation: You ignore don't care about forget the incestuous abuse of girls by males

Example: Huckabee

Queer Theory (advanced):

• If you want to discuss Huckabee incest, that's ok with me. Hadn't heard about that. I'll read up on it now, and then comment. Back in a moment...
• According to the story Huckabee "forgave" the evil sexual behavior of an underage male teen.
• Jesus Christ: a millstone put around their neck and thrown into the sea

Translations of The Word:

New International Version

"If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a large millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned at the bottom of the sea.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English

“And everyone who commits an offense against one of these little ones who believe in me, it were profitable for him that a donkey's millstone would be hung around his neck and he be sunk in the depths of the sea.”

Queer Theory: Jesus said that anyone who causes children to stumble should have a millstone put around their neck and thrown into the sea. Sounds like the very worst punishment that came to mind in the moment.

Possible points of discussion:

Greg, reach out for Reason. You are facing a contradiction. You agree with Jesus that sexual abuse put upon children is worthy of death -- you called Josh's actions evil sexual behaviour. You loathe the unwarranted 'forgiveness' of Huckabee.

So, on the one hand, you have Josh sent to the ocean bottom for his evil, unforgiven, then on the other hand, you actually require the victims to 'forgive,' pass by blame and anger for any shock upon a violation of their bodies. If they don't, they are lesbians. Who designed this fucking system?

You are trying to square a circle, a key sign of magical thinking. The folks here who contest your aphorisms are trying to do you a favour, help you appreciate reality as it is.

Pointing out the contradictions you are forced to hold is a means for you to understand where you are wrong. That is wisdom, Greg. That is which we all here seek, I would hope -- you, me, and everyone. It is what unites us and serves us well, hard, cold, manly reason.

I wish you could see the value of criticism of your queer theory. The criticism is aimed at helping you arrive at well-warranted conclusions. It invites you to reconsider invalid generalization (ie, Scherk, Reidy, Boydstun v 'Molestation').

The criticism does not take issue with your right and pleasure in denouncing behaviour you see as immoral or evil, Nor does it seek to have you tidy up your language or rhetoric. You can call us faggots straight up and that is fine. Feel free to use whatever English you want to express your disgust, alienation, rejection, dismissal, whatever. That's all good, honest, emotional, passionate.

It's the theory, Greg. It doesn't really stand up to inspection. It is faulty. It doesn't do the work you think it does.

You have a wellhead of respect on this forum. Those who respect your accomplishments (like me) and support you in your actual behaviour/attitude (Gulching in Place, so to speak), and marvel at your straightforward ease in balancing the State right out of your mental life, those of us here who respect you in manifold ways can also at the same time disagree, properly, with some of your ideas. To disrespect an aspect of your thinking is not to disrespect you as a man.

Don't squander the respect, Greg. Man up and admit there are a few holes and strains and contradictions in your queer theory, and that you maybe need to take it back to the shop.
,
I will applaud you if you do this. Otherwise, I will be remorseless in deconstructing your invalid arguments.

Points to check/emphasize:

Praise Greg, his behaviour, his attitude, his apparent integrity

Show that his theory/argument, if wrong, can be tinkered with

Underline the commonality of OL denizens in Use-Of-Reason

End with a promise and a positive undertaking

Be ready to be disappointed.

Edited May 29, 2015 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

Greg thinks he's Prometheus, William, and you think you're a fireman. I think I am too. The irony is he's not Prometheus bringing fire to the denizens of OL*. There's no fire to be put out. He's here for the fun. I've managed to enjoy myself but you've got smoke coming out of your ears.

--Brant

*gross simplification

[Selene]

Greg thinks he's Prometheus, William, and you think you're a fireman. I think I am too. The irony is he's not Prometheus bringing fire to the denizens of OL*. There's no fire to be put out. He's here for the fun. I've managed to enjoy myself but you've got smoke coming out of your ears.

--Brant

*gross simplification

[Reidy]

If Bernie Sanders is to be believed, straight women are the ones who get their sexuality imprinted on them, or so, at least, they wish. He and Moralist could get some synergy going.

(Is getting your sexuality imprinted anything like getting a tattoo? Does it hurt?)

[william.scherk]

Greg thinks he's Prometheus, William, and you think you're a fireman. I think I am too. The irony is he's not Prometheus bringing fire to the denizens of OL*. There's no fire to be put out. He's here for the fun. I've managed to enjoy myself but you've got smoke coming out of your ears.

--Brant

*gross simplification

I struggle with the hoses, Brant, and I hate heights now in my dotage. I am thoroughly Canadian in that my back may bite with cold, but if my face and hands are warm, I am golden. Fire must always be supervised is the aphorism I have just conjured on the spot.

I always forget the salient details of the Prometheus myth. I always get it mixed up with Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus, amid a thrill of horror and hubris.

Back to the fire brigade. I like a good controlled burn in metaphorical terms, as I appreciate a good landslide (as with the NDP in Alberta), or anytime the fire of public opinion sterilizes a fetid field or burns out corrupt institutions. My heart is cold, so I side with The Villagers against The Monster, and if it takes fire to burn him dead in his Keep, then let's get on with it.

Taking my aphorisms to fresh heights of inanity, Greg's torch is not for Reason, I guess. So I am watchful that he not arson what I consider valuable 'property' here amid the splendour of the OL palace.

Back in the fire-hall with you, Brant, between engagements with hellish events and pole-dancing, I am grim, silent, waiting for the inevitable spark and flame of stupid, malicious and careless. Am I fuming or vigilant? Am I steaming or am I cool?

(I do otherwise get your notion that I piss too much on grass fires that will burn out before breaching any bank. That I let a hundred flowers bloom. It just is not in my character to pass up an opportunity to lay my thoughts out at embarrassing length. I am a bit reactive like you, and I chew on my own fingers for a while with puzzles of wrongness -- challenges, opportunities, dreary classrooms of study. Thanks for the kind words of proportion. I should let you handle call outs for a while, at least on points other than Queer Theory, which is my specialty and source of entertainment.)

If Bernie Sanders is to be believed, straight women are the ones who get their sexuality imprinted on them, or so, at least, they wish. He and Moralist could get some synergy going.

(Is getting your sexuality imprinted anything like getting a tattoo? Does it hurt?)

I first saw this when Tracinski retweeted the clip. Worth a click for the follow-on.

https://twitter.com/jimgeraghty/status/603982914313920512

I can barely remember an Argosy, but Sanders invoked "Stag," "Man," "Hero," "Tough" ... Reidy, save me a trudge to Research Station and beyond, and give me a context for those men-mag fantasies/scenes he referenced, if you can, please. I know you are one or two years older than me, and I can't remember ever having one of those titles in my hands. When did they die out?

Rape fantasy magazines? Was I just not encoding some media on the racks of my youth ... I can barely remember shock-ish magazines in red and black and white about I Killed My Rapist (& Bore His Twins!) and I am probably making that up.

Does Stag, Man, Hero, Tough ring a bell with any other olderish-timer here?

He sounds a bit radical and Rand-y in a quote ABC News attributes to another essay:

According to campaign spokesperson Michael Briggs, it [the 'man and woman' essay] was "intended to attack gender stereotypes back in the 1970s, though it is as stupid today as it was back then."

"When Bernie got into this race he understood there would be attempts to distract voters from the real issues. He is determined to run a campaign that takes on big issues facing the American people and not a campaign of salacious gossip or anything like that," Briggs continued.

A second article from Mother Jones this morning includes an opinion piece written by Sanders while he was in college in 1963 at the University of Chicago in the campus newspaper. In it, he advocates for sexual liberalization.

"The administrators of this university have the right to believe that unmarried students should not engage in sexual intercourse. ... However, it is inconceivable and intolerable that these men should have the right to forcibly impose their moral, social, and sexual beliefs on the 2000 student of the college."

Edited May 29, 2015 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

There ya go. Now yer having fun again.

As for Sanders in '63--Antioch in '33 was the place to be. From a union of two came three, Mom, Dad, Sister, but not me. (I arrived in '44.). My grandparents thought their daughter would be safe--in that place?!?!

--Brant

the girls crawled all over my poor Dad--he couldn't beat them off with a stick--but Mom was the prettiest girl on campus (in her dotage she kept telling everyone how she lost her virginity: she propositioned him in the library)

[moralist]

@Greg, can you explain to me how you reconcile Christianity with Objectivism? I've read a lot about how people reconcile anarchism with Objectivism but I've never seen anybody try to reconcile Christianity with Objectivism...

That's an easy one, Robin.

Shared Values

Objectivism and Christianity share many moral values.

While I'm a Christian, I'm also a behaviorist, but I'm not a dogmatist. So people doing what's morally right is just fine with me. I couldn't care less why they do good.

And briefly... concerning dogma:

God = Objective Reality

In terms of human experience, they both operate in our lives in exactly the same manner. We are morally accountable to both in exactly the same way through the just and deserved consequences we set into motion by our own freely chosen actions.

Greg

[moralist]

Greg thinks he's Prometheus, William, and you think you're a fireman. I think I am too. The irony is he's not Prometheus bringing fire to the denizens of OL*. There's no fire to be put out. He's here for the fun. I've managed to enjoy myself but you've got smoke coming out of your ears.

--Brant

*gross simplification

Exactly, Brant.

OL is no end of fun, and I enjoy the lighthearted banter immensely.

But Prometheus? Hardly!

I'm just a self reliant Boy Scout who knows how to build my own shelter and make my own fire to keep warm and to cook food.

William is a typical cookie cutter feminized leftist with the mind of a bureaucrat. I call them "blind scribes". The government loves them as employees.

Get even close to the truth... and he grinds out tomes to support the lies of his secular political religion of liberalism.

I build... William googles

Greg

[Reidy]

I can barely remember an Argosy, but Sanders invoked "Stag," "Man," "Hero," "Tough" ... Reidy, save me a trudge to Research Station and beyond, and give me a context for those men-mag fantasies/scenes he referenced, if you can, please. I know you are one or two years older than me, and I can't remember ever having one of those titles in my hands. When did they die out?

Rape fantasy magazines? Was I just not encoding some media on the racks of my youth ... I can barely remember shock-ish magazines in red and black and white about I Killed My Rapist (& Bore His Twins!) and I am probably making that up.

Does Stag, Man, Hero, Tough ring a bell with any other olderish-timer here?

The tabs in the old days used to emphasize gruesome crimes, "I cut out her heart and stomped on it" being the all-purpose (and probably fictiitous) example. They didn't treat sexual crimes, though. I suspect that this, like the rest of his remarks about sexual psychology, tell us more about Sanders than about anything in the external world. He was making it up in the confident expectation that his readers wouldn't question him.

The Sanders revelations aren't surprising if you were around back then. His cohort were quite crudely, noisily misogynistic, and quite hateful toward gays, before the party line changed. Conservatives took the housewifely virtues for granted, but they didn't advertise their contempt for women. They would have disapproved of homosexuality if you had asked them, but they didn't bring the topic up otherwise.

[Brant Gaede]

Greg. I concede Prometheus.

I'm man enough to know when I'm wrong and admit it.

--Brant

https://youtu.be/eFTLKWw542g

[Brant Gaede]

My post #76 is both a satire and refutation of Greg's #74 wherein he posits love is how you act and not a feeling you act on. Hence the gross physicality. "Feelings don't matter" is what he said--in this case the feeling of love as must be opposed to feelings of physical contact, AKA, for him, "actions."

--Brant

[anthony]

There are many different kinds of gay people in their gayness, many different kinds of straight people in their straightness, and different sorts of mixtures between.

This could be the best thought that has emerged. After its genus and differentiae, there are so many variants and sub-variants of mankind, that no satisfactory explanation exists but that of one of a kind individualism.

[moralist]

There are many different kinds of gay people in their gayness, many different kinds of straight people in their straightness, and different sorts of mixtures between.

This could be the best thought that has emerged. After its genus and differentiae, there are so many variants and sub-variants of mankind, that no satisfactory explanation exists but that of one of a kind individualism.

Yes... one could almost say that there are fifty shades of grey.

Greg

[moralist]

My post #76 is both a satire and refutation of Greg's #74 wherein he posits love is how you act and not a feeling you act on. Hence the gross physicality. "Feelings don't matter" is what he said--in this case the feeling of love as must be opposed to feelings of physical contact, AKA, for him, "actions."

--Brant

And I truly enjoy your satire, Brant...

...but you've no doubt realized by now that I'm always the straight man.

Greg

[Reidy]

If you'll pardon the expression.

[moralist]

Double entendre.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

No one thought it was a single.

Is a triple entendre the same as a single, only more complicated? Kinda like a dance. Jiggle, jiggle, one step forward, jiggle, one step back, jiggle, jiggle, one step forward, jiggle, stop!

--anon.

the spell check thinks "entendre" is misspelled: this means it's stupid and the folks who created it are stupid

travelling and traveling: one is misspelled, according to the spelling Nazis

why is a misspelled word a big deal?--because your third grade teacher said so and we have to have spelling bees in which 13 yo boys and girls correctly spell ridiculous words--oh, yeah, Samuel Johnson (why did Boswell hang out with that guy? Brains?)